George Clooney and Matt Damon endorse Obama

That's right. Obama's won the support of not just two Hollywood superstars, but two Hollywood activists for global issues. If you haven't seen Syrianna, you're only cheating yourself.

Of course, these two aren't the only big names supporting Obama. He's won the endorsement of fellow actors Edward Norton, Ben Affleck, Sharon Stone , the entire Dreamworks Studio, Musician Neal Young, Philanthropist Warren Buffet, TV host Oprah Winfrey, Chigaco Mayor Richard Daley, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, Washington Congressman Adam Smith, Ethel Kennedy (widow to Bobby Kennedy), and even Stephen Colbert, in a rare out of character apperance. This, of course, is only a partial list. There are many more high profile names and names will continue to be added as the campaign progresses.

A profile in GOP alternatives: Tom Tancredo

This is the seventh installment of my analysis of Obama's potential Republican foes in the general election. I have previously profiled Sam Brownback, John McCain, Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

Tom Tancredo is up today, and he's a single-issue protest candidate. That issue: immigration. Putting aside the fact that there is multiple sources of evidence that shows immigrants help the economy as well as reduce crime, the very notion of "it's our country" and "we were here first" is one of the most hypocritical statements ever uttered. I included the above cartoon because it displays the silliness of Tancredo's singlue issue: we of course, were NOT here first. America first took the land (and and the lives) of the Native Americans. We bought Louisiana from France, we took California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas from Mexico in an imperialistic war of agression, we took the Phillipenes from Spain, and we bought Alaska from the Russians. Oh, and did I mention that most of us aren't even decdendants of the origninal people who came here?And that most of these groups (Irish, Italians, Chinese, Eastern Europeans, ect) had to face huge descrimination in their hayday as well?

Perhaps the biggest irony is that as a liberal, I'm against illegal immigration as well, but for a very different reason: I think it should be legal immigration. These people should be allowed to be US citizens. In addition, to reduce "illegal" immigration, we should remove the market from it by increasing penalties for companies that hire immigrants and offering rewards for workers who turn their employers in. This would be far cheaper than building a wall, and would encourage the proper behavior from the enforcement of the free market. A perfectly conservative idea.

Of course, the Republican Party never puts principle above hatred. Tancredo's view of immigration has nothing to do with economic woes, crime fears, terrorism concerns (the 9/11 hijackers all came here LEGALLY,) or worker's rights. It has everything to do with racism. This is why Tancredo recently addressed a hate group and, in reference to it's high ethnic population, called Miami a "third world country," and said it was "the murder capitol of the world." There are at least five major cities in the US with a higher murder rate than Miami, and the "murder capitol of the world" is actually the nation of Colombia, likely because of the huge influence of drug cartel wars.

Are Tancredo and most of his supporters racists? Of course. Why is it so hard to admit to this simple fact? Most anti-immigrant semtiment in America has been historically racist. This is no different. There's no other reason to be so against immigration. But does Tancredo bother me? Not really. Because of people like him, in 2006, Hispanic voters abandonded Republicans in droves. So Tom! Keep doing what you're doing!

Memorial Day: Mark Twain's War Prayer

The war, though popular for the first six months or so, became unpopular relatively quickly. Republicans barely held on in 2004 with a 51% majority. In 2006, the war sunk the GOP. It is now 2007. The public and the politicians on both sides of the isle are more against this war than ever. in 2008, things will undoubtedly be worse and we will still be in Iraq. How can anybody say that any Republican candidate will have a reasonable chance?

My prediction: in 2008, when we win, the history books will write down that the war destroyed the GOP and they never had a chance, no matter which candidate they nominated. There are other factors as well: I think if Obama is our nominee, he will be a considerably more charismatic candidate than either Kerry or Gore was. In addition, there are strong fissues in the conservative movement over issues like immigration. But there is nothing that can match the all mighty stentch from this miserable war. People aren't going to remember that in 2007, most of the Democrats unfortunately broke down and signed a war funding bill. They are going to remember who lied us into the war in the first place. What do they have to offer us?

A Profile in GOP alternatives: Sam Brownback

This is the sixth installment of my analysis of Obama's potential Republican foes in the general election. I have previously profiled John McCain, Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

Today, Sam Brownback, Senator from Kansas, is up, and he's a real nut. I know what you're thinking, if you have been following this series...they are ALL nuts! But Brownback really is number one. In an interview, when asked to name his top five priorities, Sam listed them as:

1. A flat tax
2. Privatizing Social Security
3. A culture of life - i.e., pro-life
4. Supporting marriage – against gay marriage
5. Curing cancer in the next 10 years

Notice: Nothing about foreign policy. Nothing about the environment. The first two involve a massive transfer of funds from the poor to the rich: something I'm sure Jesus would have been in favor of. The second two are perhaps to make up for the first two: religious right bullshit. The last, while noble, is probably unrealistic.

During the first debate, Brownback was one of only three Republicans to say he didn't believe in evolution (Huckabee and Tancredo were the other two). Not to be outdone, some of his supporters don't believe the earth revolves around the sun.

Brownback once washed the feet of a departing staff member as a symbolic religious throwback to when Jesus washed the feet of a prostitute. Brownback's views on medical science are insane, and he once equated stem cell research to Nazi holocuast experiments. (Speaking of the holocaust, Brownback supporters aren't sure they believe in that, either.) His own website proudly lists support for stopping violent video games, and increasing media censorship and he calls pornography a "scourge upon civilization." He said Jerry Falwell was a "great man" of "moral principle." Falwell is the man that said, among other things, that God's anger over gays and feminists made him allow 9/11.

And how does Brownback suppose he'll win over the rest of America with such a far-right platform? He doesn't. He's not even trying. Read the text of his first campaign email:

Dear Fellow Conservative,I’ve sent YOU this urgent email message because I was told that just like me you are a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, God-fearing American.Is that correct?If it’s NOT then you might as well just go ahead and ddelete this message now.

Well, I suppose there's no need to continue, then. That sums it up.

Obama winning the "Have a beer with" vote

Before I begin, do yourself a favor and go read this by Andrew Sullivan. It's a piece on why Obama can appeal to even conservative, small government minded voters.

In 2004, conservatives described Bush's charm as "a guy you'd want to have a beer with." Putting aside the fact that most Democrats, including myself, would certainly NOT want to have a beer with Bush, what does this have to do with anything? At the time, I believed that it's merely a poor sustitute for the quality speaking skills of a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, which Bush sorely lacked.

Looking back, I may have been wrong. Bush presented a simple, uncomplicated view of the world. He seemed like he was trying to relate to people, even if he was failing at it. Both Kerry and Gore seemed to be wooden, uncharismatic, unreal people. When they tried to fake charisma, it almost seemed to make the problem worse.

At any rate, in today's political world, it would be foolish to discount the will of voters who decide their candidate based on who they'd like to hang out with, even if their reasons are foolish. (How many of those Bush voters ended up getting that beer with Bush, I wonder?) It should be no surprise that the most charismatic candidate, Barack Obama, is winning that vote already.

The particular poll in question says "Who would you like to have a Memorial Day picnic chat with," but, it's close enough. The poll only pitted Obama against other Democrats. (In a similar poll with Republicans, Giuliani was the winner.) Perhaps what was particularly surprising about the poll was that Obama even led among all female voters.

Obama has other good polling news. He's the candidate most people expect to win the election. He also has the highest amount of "base" support, meaning 33% of the country already says they will "definately" vote for him (the highest amount of any candidate of either party.)

In related good news, Democrats are now trusted more than Republicans on Healthcare, Taxes, Abortion, the Economy, Ethics, the War in Iraq, Immigration, Education, Social Security, and even National Security. Republicans outpreformed Democrats in exactly zero catagories. Democrats are also holding a 10 point advantage in terms of the congressional ballot. To put that in perspective, in 2006, Democrats won the national ballot by 7 points.

A profile in GOP alternatives: John McCain

This is the fifth installment of my analysis of Obama's potential Republican foes in the general election. I have previously profiled Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

As you can see from the above video, McCain is a serial flip-flopper. A CNN montage of clips shows that he also has serious anger issues. But, for a moment, I want to put aside McCain's ways of expressing himself (ie, switching between rapidly contradicting himself and getting angry), and talk about his supposedly "long, distinguished" carreer in the Senate.

Recently, McCain helped supress 97% percent of the pages from the congressional Jack Abramoff investigation. There's also his "Baghdad market stroll", where he said that the market was safe, but when he visted he needed to be accompanied by 8 humvees, 2 apache helicopters, and over 100 armed soldiers. But this wasn't simply a photo-op gome bad for McCain. Hours after he left the market, terrorists hunted down the people in the market photo-op and attacked them, resulting in an estimated 21 dead. Of course, those 21 dead are nothing compared to the total number who have died in this war that has gone on so long partly because of pro-war cheerleading by people like McCain.

Isn't John McCain a moderate, though? Not really. A lot of his more principled stands have been nothing more than Kabuki theatere. Consider his bill to ban torture in 2005. He fought and he fought for it, yet when it was ultimately passed, Bush used a signing statement to render it meaningless. What did we hear from McCain? Nothing. What's more, the next year, he voted in favor of the pro-torture Millitary Commisions Act of 2006. He also used to use the word "Gook" to describe people from Vietnam.

I want to close by sharing a piece of legislation co-sponsored by McCain. I think it demonstrates hall his flaws at once. It's the "Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act" and it allowed the FCC to raise fines for obscene language by 10 times their original amounts. This legislation isn't just contemptible for its trampling of our first amendment rights, it's extremely hypocritical of McCain to create hundred thoursand dollar penalties for swearing on air but say "fuck you" to his own Senate collegues.

Obama Votes "No" on War Funding

Almost immediately after Obama voted "No" on the horrific "blank check" war funding bill, McCain and Romney decided to attack him for "not supporting the troops." Obama quickly shot back, with style. This is exactly the way the Democratic party needs to be in 2008.

Strange Poll Movements Post-Debate

There has been enough time passed after the Republican and Democratic Debates to access if there's been any real movement in the polls, and what's happened has been extremely strange. It either calls conventional wisdom or polling methodology into serious question.

On the Republican side, polls and pundits show Romney has been the leader in the debates. Rudy Giuliani has been seen as the big loser. What's happened in the national polls? Giuliani is down, but still in the lead. Romney doesn't appear to have had that much movement. Fred Thompson hasn't announced or raised any money but is about even with Romney already. But in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls, Romney has for the first time taken the lead. So although he doesn't appear to be making much traction nationally (in a tie for third place), he seems to be doing well in the early states that will count for more.

On the Democratic side, Hillary's and Edward's numbers are stable and Obama's numbers are slighlty down nationally, but Obama has leapt over Hillary to get to 2nd place in Iowa, behind Edwards, whose lead has shrunk slightly. It was difficult to tell who was percieved to have won the first debate.

What does this mean? I have no idea. It's possible that Romney could take the early states and overcome his national deficit with a lot of media fanfare. He, by far, has the most money raised of any Republican. If Edwards holds onto his lead in Iowa and wins the state, he'll get some fanfare as well - but unlike Romney, he has less than half the money raised of his challengers. Is a strong second place enough for Obama in Iowa? Will third place be too big a black mark on Hillary's campaign theme of inevitability? Howard Dean was finished after a third place showing in Iowa.

It's certainly going to be an interesting election.

Obama calls for Universal Health Care, Withdrawl from Iraq and gets Ovation

Obama has been going through New Jersey and getting big crows and big applause by calling for common sense Democratic goals in simple, honest language.

"There's no reason we cannot make sure every American has health care."

And how to pay for that healthcare? First, Obama points out what should be obvious: in a system administered by the government, costs will be lowered. The government already pays for a huge amount of healthcare for federal and state employees anyway. Medicare and Medicaid are already two of the biggest items in the budget, bypassing welfare spending 20 times over. It's been estimated that the switch could end up saving 100 billion dollars or more and could save tens of thousands of lives.

Second, Obama says he'll repeal Bush's tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. Remember all that scare about Pelosi raising taxes? In a comprimise deal in January, Pelosi slightly raised taxes on people making more than 1.4 million dollars per year. Do they really need the money? More importantly, hasn't Bush been raising taxes in a round about way by allowing private healthcare to price gouge us? I'm sure even if we all needed to chip in for this healthcare it can't be as much as the incredible risings costs we've had to endure.

Obama also had good rhetoric on the Iraq war.

"If we organize, we can bring an end to a war that never should have been authorized," Obama said, raising his voice over cheers. He added, "I'm proud that in 2002 I stood up, when it wasn't popular to be against this war."

Isn't this nice? No ifs, ands, or buts. This is exactly what Obama should say in the next debate. And its great that Obama got a standing ovation for this in New Jersey, which is supposed to be "Clinton territory." I'm convinced that a lot of Hillary's support is soft and will fade as the campaign begins to truly kick into full swing.

A profile in GOP alternatives: Tommy Thompson

This is the fourth installment of my analysis of Obama's potential Republican foes in the general election. I have previously profiled Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

Thompson was the former Governor of Wisconsin, and his story starts in 2006, when he turned down a chance to run against a Democrat-held open Senate seat in 2006. If he had won that race (and polls showed that he would have had a great chance of doing so,) Republicans would have held onto the Senate. So you can imagine how popular Thompson is with the GOP elite right now. Anyway, now that we've gone over why Thompson has no institutional backing whatsover, let's look at why he has virtually no popular support, either. Basically, he pisses off everyone. And I mean, everyone.

Let's go to the first debate. When asked, "If a priavte employer feels that homosexuality is immoral, should they be allowed to fire a gay worker?" Thompson answered:

"I think that is left up to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people have got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be."

While in my opinion this is blatantly un-American and disgusting, this is a reasonable statement to woo right wing voters. Although its a harsher stand than other candidates have taken, I don't see why Thompson felt a need to correct himself asfter the debate. He said he didn't hear the question properly, because his hearing had gone in one ear and the hearing aid in his other ear had a dead battery. He also said,

"I've been very sick. ... I was very sick the day of the debate. I had all of the problems with the flu and bronchitis that you have, including running to the bathroom. I was just hanging on. I could not wait until the debate got off so I could go to the bathroom."

So first, Thompson disses gays. Then, he says that he didn't mean it. Now he's angered both gays, and conservatives, and he looks like a flip-flopper. Then, he gives us wayyy too much information. Although, this is still better than the unbelievable screw up he did a few weeks earlier.

"I'm in the private sector and for the first time in my life I'm earning money," Republican hopeful and former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson said Monday. "You know that's sort of part of the Jewish tradition."

He then went on to clarify by saying,

"What I was referring to ladies and gentlemen is the accomplishments of the Jewish religion and the Jewish people. You have been outstanding business people and I compliment you for that and if anybody took what I said wrong, I apologize. I may have mischaracterized it. You are very successful. I applaud you for that."

Uh-huh. Although, of course, that isn't what really angers the right wing voters in charge of deciding who gets the nomination. They're more concerned that Thompson is on the board of directors of a company called "Verichip," which manufactures implantable computer chips. It is supposed to store medical information and...who knows what else. They are currently talking to the Pentagon to get a chip implanted into every soldier. They call that a "test," before they take the chip and try to sell it to...everyone.

Sound a bit too much like the "Manchurian Candidate" for you? Waiting for me to say that I'm joking? I wish I was, but I'm deadly serious. And Thompson isn't just on the Board of Directors of this company, he's personally endorsed this idea. Right wingers are freaking out over this, for they see a connection with the chip and the "Mark of the Beast" in the Book of Revalations. Some wingnuts have gone so far as to suggest that Thompson may be the AntiChrist.

All I can say is this: if your policies are so terrible that they make you look like Big Brother to a left wing voter and the AntiChrist to a right wing voter, there's no chance you're getting elected. Which is, if you think about it, something to be grateful for in and of itself.

Will the youth vote for Obama?

Today a Reuter's headline reads, "Obama 'Counting' on young voters in New Hampshire," citing a poll that shows young Democratic voters prefer Obama. (As a side note, young Republicans prefer Giuliani.) The article goes on to say that the power of youths is "growing." There are multiple factors that may be influencing young Democrats to vote for Obama over Hillary:

• Obama, at age 45, is the youngest candidate and may be easier to identify with.
• Obama's strong anti-war focus may be attractive to younger voters, whom are more anti-war and anti-Bush than the public at large.
• Older voters may more clearly remember the economic success of Bill Clinton's Presidency, while younger voters (such as myself) have only been paying attention for a few election cycles.
• The innovative and internet savvy campaign that Obama is running attacts young voters.
• Obama's charisma may be more imporant to younger voters.
• The argument that "Obama lacks experience," may ring hollow for young voters who feel that in their own lives, they hear that phrase too often and it rings hollow.

Unfortunately, no matter which of these factors is playing into Obama's support, relying on younger voters to turn out is historically speaking a terrible strategy. In 1972, McGovern called young voters his "secret weapon." They turned out at remarkably low levels and half of them voted for Nixon. In the 2004 Democratic primary, Howard Dean did almost the exact same strategy as Obama, running a web-savvy campaign and courting youth voters who didn't show up. In the 2004 general election, an amazing amount of money and attention was spent on youth mobilization. A great report on the youth vote helped me get some detailed information on what happened in that election. Among voters under 30, Kerry won by nine points, and among those under 25, Kerry won by thirteen points. (Sadly, this was the only age group that Kerry won.) Despite the fact that youth turnout was up, nearly every other group was up in 2004 as well. So basically, the 2004 election featured more attention on the youth (remember Kerry claiming Bush was going to revive the draft?) but they ended up representing the same small percentage of the electorate that they always do.

The "Youth Vote" strategy actually has more pitfalls for Obama than its historical track record. Consider:

• Minorities represented the more liberal youth voters in 2004. Among young white Americans, Bush lead by 9 percent. Iowa and New Hampshire are 97% white.
• Not only are young, white voters more likely to be Republicans (and therefore not vote for Obama in the primary), they aren't likely to vote, period. A huge percent of the 2004 youth vote increase came from Democratic-leaning minorities.
• In 2006, Democrats won the young vote by 18 percent. But considering that they won it by nine percent in 2004, a nine point swing for the Democrats mirrors the rest of the country almost exactly (as Democrats won among all voters by 7 percent in 2006, compared to losing by 3 percent in 2004) . So young voters aren't becoming more Democratic faster than any other block. And again, a large chunk of that gain was from minorities, particularly Hispanics, which aren't represented in Iowa or New Hampshire.

This doesn't mean Obama shouldn't focus on the youth vote at all. He does have some advantages:

• Obama's internet organization is far superior to Howard Dean's, and the internet has greatly expanded as a tool for activism. (Although the internet is split between Obama and Edwards right n0w).
• Obama's charisma and crowd drawing abilities may helpd him get more voters to show up than other less inspiring candidates like Kerry and Gore
• If Obama is able to moblize young voters, he may catch opponents by surprise. Typically, young voters are factored out of "likely voter" surveys because of their historical record of not showing up.

So what have we learned?

• While Obama should continue to court the youth vote, "Counting on them," is not a good idea in Iowa and New Hampshire. The data suggests he needs to have a plan B of some kind.
• The "news" doesn't do research. If they had bothered to spend 20 minutes with a search engine, they never would have said that "the power of youths is growing." Their power stayed the same in 2000, 2004, and 2006. It has stayed at the same low level it's always been.
  

A profile in GOP alternatives: Jim Gilmore

This is the third installment of my analysis of Obama's potential Republican foes in the general election. I have previously profiled Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

Today Jim Gilmore is up. Gilmore is a the longest of longshots, having raised less cash than any of the other 9 announced Republican candidates for President. He's the former Governor of Virginia. His speaking style is so boring and his answers are so tepid at the debates that it's quite easy to forget he's even running.

Gilmore's lack of traction among Republicans, however, is still a bit perplexing. Every other candidate has major problems with the conservative base. Giuliani is pro-choice. McCain is against torture. Romney's frequent ideological flip flops have angered conservatives. Brownback has a terrible record on immigration, or at least crazy anti-immigrant folks seem to think so. Tancredo backs timetables for leaving Iraq. Hunter is for restrictions on free trade. Huckabee think's its ok to sometimes raise taxes. Thompson has caused a stir among NRA activists for his views on gun control. Paul, the libertarian protest candidate, has views on foreign policy that sound like Michael Moore.

By sharp contrast, Gilmore has no apperent ideological problem. I think the real reason why he has gained no traction is because Republicans know he can't win. Why? Because Gilmore's tenure as Governor of Virginia offers such a clear example of what happens to the economy under ultra-conservative policies. Drastic cuts in taxes and spending created over a billion dollars in deficit and the economy slowed to a crawl. The economic situation was so bad that only a month after 9/11, the state home to Pat Roberson, Jerry Falwell and Robert E. Lee elected Democrat Mark Warner to take over as Governor. Thanks to his policies, Virginia's economy did a complete turnaround, Warner left office with an 80% approval rating, and he was rated one of America's top 5 Governors. If Obama was not running in this election and Mark Warner was, there would be no question that he'd have my vote.

It's very sad that Warner is not running for President, but Gilmore thinks he has a chance in this race. He says he's running because he wants to offer the nation "conservative leadership." He's a conservative, all right - that's the problem.

Obama Encourages Iran Divestment

Obama is pushing a new bill in the Senate that would encourage investors to divest from Iran.

Historically speaking, divesting has been an effective strategy. Divesting from South Africa helped put pressre on that country to chnge its laws on apartheid. North Korea was recently threatened with a specific kind of saction that's similar to a divestment, a prevention of certain key goods from entering the nation. (One example being fresh lobster, which was rumored to be the favorate food of Kim Jong-Il) The pressure helped get a deal, although that was the exception and not the rule for the Bush administration.

I'm all in favor of an aggresive foreign policy that doesn't involve unneccecary war. We should do everything we can in the realms of diplomatic and economic persuation to keep our nation safe. We should have a President who can use all of the tools avaliable, not just the cudgel.

A profile in GOP alternatives: Mitt Romney

This is the second installment of my analysis of Obama's potential Republican foes in the general election. I have previously profiled Rudy Giuliani.

Today, Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, is up. Here is what Mitt had to say in an interview about catching Osama bin Laden.

"It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."

On Romney's web site, a featured quote of Romney reads,

"Of course we get Osama bin Laden and track him wherever he has to go and make sure he pays for the outrage he exacted on America. ... We'll move everything to get him"

In 1994, Romney wrote a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP lobbying group, which stated,

"There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sex couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions."

He's also said,

"With a matter as vital to society as marriage, I am troubled when I see an intolerant few wrap the marriage debate with their bias and prejudice."

On Romney's website, of course, you'll see this quote regarding Massachusett's decision to allow gay marriage...

"Last year the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck a blow against the family, as I'm sure you know. The court forgot that marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. Its ruling meant that our society is supposed to be indifferent about whether children have a mother and a father."

Of course, there is more to Romney than his serial flip-flopping. As impossibl as it may sound, Romney seems more devoted to gutting our legal rights than President Bush. In the recent debate, Romney was told that the White House has started to talk about closing Gitmo, and asked what he thinks should be done. He responded with,

"My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo."

This is one of those rare statements that is equally ambigious and bad. I'm not at all sure what it means, but there's really no good way to mean it.

And who can forget his statements at the CPAC conference?

"After you hear from me, you're going to hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing."

Later on in the speech, he said,

"Conservatism is a belief in strength. It's because of American's strength that we don't all speak German and that our kids don't all speak Russian. And it's because of American's strength that our grandchildren won't have to speak Pharsi or Arabic or Chinese."

This should be truly disgusting to everyone who isn't xenophobic, yet it drew loud applause. Of course, consider the source. Those people won't be solely electing our next President.

But let's all hope they do solely choose the Republican nominee.

Obama and Clinton back Cutoff for Iraq War

Today is a remakable turning point in the war's opposition. Barack and Hillary (along with Chris Dodd, John Edwards, and others) are now in support of a bill that doesn't just set benchmarks, it actually cuts off most of the funding for the Iraq war by next year. This is a stronger anti-war bill than the one the President just vetoed. Just a few months ago, Hillary was talking about keeping a "combat force" to combat insurgents and Obama was talking about working for a comprimise bill to aviod a fund cutoff.

I'm glad that both of the frontrunners have changed their postion to oppose this war in stronger legislative language. Backing down when the President is at a 28% approval rating is very stupid. The time to press the Democratic agenda is now.

A profile in GOP alternatives: Rudy Giuliani

In this blog, I've made the case that Obama should be the Democratic nominee. While I feel this case is strong, I also feel that all of the Democrats running would be fine Presidents.

Many of the Republicans, however, are downright frightening. Therefore, I'm introducing a new feature of this blog: A blow by blow analysis of Obama's Republican foes, should he be the nominee, and why it is so important that they do not become President.

Today, Rudy Giuliani is up. I've already talked about some of Rudy's more disgusting views on partisan politics. Olbermann's comment, as always, was right on the money. It helped dispel the notion that Giuliani is some kind of "new Republican," some kind of moderate who's different than Bush. I think Rudy's own words almost speak for themselves.

He said this at the Republican Convention in 2004.

Thank God that George Bush is our president, and thank God that Dick Cheney, a man with his experience and his knowledge and his strength and his background, is our vice president.

And Rudy doesn't just support Bush personally, he also supports his policies in Iraq.

Success or failure in Iraq is not a matter of partisan politics but a matter of national security. All Americans should be hoping, praying and offering constructive advice for the success of our troops in Iraq and for those Iraqis seeking to create a stable and decent government. In that spirit, I support the President’s increase in troops.

But the similarities don't end there, either. Rudy shares Bush's love for authoritarianism.

Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

As mayor, these beliefs became policy. He won the Thomas Jefferson Center's "Muzzle Award" for malicious actions against free speech three times, for a laundry list of items that included attempts to censor art, prohibit public protests and shut down magazine stands if they sold content of which he didn't personally approve.

But what about his stellar 9/11 leadership? A myth. Rudy's lack of prepardness for what happened caused much of the problems. He located the NYC command and control center in the World Trade Center, even after it had already been attacked earlier and he was warned not to put it there. After the attack, he told people it was safe to breathe the dusty air, and it turns out, it wasn't. After the attacks, the city actually dumped the bodies of the fallen into the garbage. Rudy's record is such that he can't even go to NYC anymore without fear of 9/11 families protesting him.

Of course, Rudy wasn't always Mayor of New York. Anybody care to guess his former career? He was a lobbyist. For whom did he lobby?

Giuliani's law and lobbying clients have included Saudi Arabia, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., and chewing tobacco maker UST Inc.

Can anything, anything else be said about this sorry excuse for a candidate? Unfortunately, yes, yes, and yes.

Obama in St. Louis & Multiculturalism

I recently read this great Daily Kos post, which included a great video of Obama's recent speech in St. Louis.

If you follow European politics at all, you know that one of the biggest hot button issues all over Western Europe is the issue of "Multiculturalism." Basically, the debate is this: how much should we tolerate the behavior of the new, largely Muslim immigrants?

The cultural practice of genital mutilation, of course, is illegal in Western Europe as well as America. So are honor killings. Other issues, such as the breadth of free speech, or whether or not women should be wearing veils, are still hotly debated.

You may be wondering what any of this has to do with Obama's speech. Well, I've always noticed a false dichotomy between the "Multiculturalists" who plead that all cultures are different and should be respected and treated with tolerance, and the "Anti-Multiculturalists" who seem motivated by fear and racism and xenophobia.

Obama brings the answer together wonderfully. Of course, America as well as Western Europe recognizes that certain immigrant cultural norms must be discouraged, or even outlawed. Most reasonable people, though, don't want to be unneccecarily obtrusive into the lives of others. So by what standard do we draw the line? How far should our tolerance go?

Our tolerance should only go as far as intolerance. It's that simple. What unifies us should be our desire to be unified. As Obama pointed out, the civil rights movement wasn't about African-Americans, it was about Americans. What makes us Americans, or what makes us French, British, or whatever....it should be what makes us love each other more and treat each other with more respect. Nothing more and nothing less should be our standard for what behavior should be tolerated.

A Moral Imperative: Healthcare

One of the most important issues of this campaign is the issue of healthcare, and I'm glad Obama has been a strong voice on this issue.

I had no intention of writing this diary when I woke up this morning. I was idly reading a news story, and came across this. It starts out

WASHINGTON - Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday. A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him. If his mother had been insured.

The time has come for universal health care. Period. The specifics for how this is going to be achieved are an important detail to debate, but for the moment, I don't really care. I just know that our current system is way past the point of decency.

We live in a nation that spends half a trillion dollars on war. Half a trillion dollars mastering the technologies of organized murder. Much of that goes into weapons research that produces weapons that we will never use. Much of that goes into weapons that, if we did use them, would end the world.

We live in a nation that almost succeeded, last year, in making special provisions so that people like Paris Hilton don't have to pay so much taxes.

We live in a nation where people like us are demonized by people on the right who claim to support "the sanctity of life."

We live at a time when we know more about Britney Spears's latest haircut than the suffering of our fellow citizens.

This isn't a small issue. Not to the millions and millions of American citizens suffering. Not to the thousands who have died premature deaths.

We often are outraged, and rightfully so, when we learn our government has made the choice to torture a few hundred of our citizens in secret camps. However, this is little different than our government's decision to torture millions of our fellow citizens, in broad daylight, by denying them access to health care. We have the money. We are simply choosing not to spend it.
About an average of three or four Americans die in Iraq every day. How many people die because their government has barred them from the hospitals and doctor's offices in their own towns? I cannot find a statistic on this number. Is it because we care so little about our nation's poor? Or, do those with power wish to hide this statistic, as it might outrage us more than we already are? I don't know.

When I read about the latest American casualty today, my blood boiled. Only one thought was in my mind.

Not one more death. Not one more mother's child. Not one more grave needlessly filled.
The time is now.

Obama vs. Republicans: Faith Style

Barack Obama says:

"No matter how religious they may or may not be," Obama said, "people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don't want faith used to belittle or to ivide. They're tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon."

Today, the AP has an article about Mitt Romney that says:

BOSTON - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is defending his opposition to gay marriage by citing the Scriptures. The former Massachusetts governor, who in his 1994 Senate bid pledged to be a more effective champion for gay causes than his Democratic rival, discussed gay marriage in an interview set to air Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes.""This isn't just some temporary convenience here on Earth, but we're people that are designed to live together as male and female and we're gonna have families,"

Newt Gingrich has said:

For most Americans, an atheistic society that forbids public reference to God and removes religious symbols is a horrifyingly bad society.

To tie this all together with perfect irony, we have Brownback from the recent debate:

This is a key point, I think. And I think it's a key point for the country. Because we've had 40 or 50 years, now, of trying to run faith out of the public square. And we're a nation of faith. As my colleague, Senator Lieberman, a Jew, says, America is a faith-based experiment as a country. We should celebrate and invite faith. And our motto is, "In God we trust." This isn't something that divides. This is something that pulls together and lifts us up. And it's key, and it's important. We shouldn't be trying to run it out of the public square. We should invite it in and celebrate it.

The most recent government census, taken before the massive explosion of non religious views from Richard Dawkins et al, shows that 15% of Americans describe themselves as Atheists, Agnostics, or "Not religious." When Brownback says "We are a nation of faith...this isn't something that divides..." he is discounting that at least 45 million Americans are not people of faith.

And, what's perhaps worse than all this is something else Brownback mentioned, our national motto. Yes, it's currently, "In God we Trust." But it's only been that way since Eisenhower chagned it to be so in the 50's to thumb his nose at the godless communists. It used to be "E pluribus unum." All for one, one for all. Unity.

No wonder they changed it. To people who desire strife, to people who would pit their fellow citizens against each other, to those who believe only they hold the truth and to hell with everyone else - the phrase "E pluribus unum" must have been poison. To remind them that they have any special bond with their fellow American citizens, whom they detest so much, must have been an incredible thorn in their side.

Barack Obama Ad

Here's the first Obama Ad:



This is great. It's cut the way you'd view an old documentary about Martin Luther King. It's able to convey a message even if the viewer isn't listening to the audio or has the TV on mute.

It's also good because it's able to showcase Obama's charisma, but at the same time talk about policy issues. And the policy issues are items that every Democrat is going to agree on. A very, very effective ad. Its hard to imagine that Hillary's "It's time to have a conversation," people can put together anything even close to this good.

Barack Obama and Framing

Here's what Obama had to say on the issue of race:

"As the child of a black man and a white woman, someone who was born in the racial melting pot of Hawaii, with a sister who's half Indonesian but who's usually mistaken for Mexican or Puerto Rican, and a brother-in-law and niece of Chinese descent, with some blood relatives who resemble Margaret Thatcher and others who could pass for Bernie Mac, so that family get-togethers over Christmas take on the appearance of a UN General Assembly meeting, I've never had the option of restricting my loyalties on the basis of race, or measuring my worth on the basis of tribe."

This little story, while not particularly important, is an important example of what political strategists call "framing." Usually, when we experience framing today, we experience it in short soundbites, such as the phrase, "cut and run." That phrase is almost exclusively used to describe some kind of cowardly action, ergo, anybody who wants to end the war is a coward. This makes no sense but if enough politicans say it repeatedly it does not fall on deaf ears.

Obama takes some time to construct his frame. At first, it appears that he's merely talking about his family, in effect, personalizing himself to the voter. Towards the end of the story, he says he's never even had the option of choosing loyalties based on race. If the voter thinks for a momement that this might be dishonest, all they have to do is read the above passage. Only after constructing that narriative can he make a statement that he knows will be taken seriously.

While this is good speechwriting, this isn't a frame. The frame here is when he says "UN General Assembly meeting." This is pure genious. First, the phrase itself is funny, which means it is easier to remember. Second, it subltely suggests, "hey...I've been to a UN General Assembly meeting! I'm not too inexperienced to be President!" Again, Obama manages to find a way to make a statement that can't be accused of being dishonest because, in this case, he's not even outright saying it. Yet, this will be what people remember. It's very similar to when he said, "I've haven't taken a long time to learn the ways of Washington...but I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." He's suggesting not only do the current people suck, but in fact his lack of experience is a GOOD thing: he hasn't been tainted and "learned the ways of Washington."

Bottom line: Obama frames well. Which is good. We haven't had a good framer since Bill Clinton. One of his best lines was, "I feel your pain." Of course, the unstated attack is, "And the other guy doesn't give a crap about you."

Obama Cartoon and Clean Coal

Here is a funny comic I found:


Turning to more somber topics for a moment, Obama is under fire by some enviromentalists for his support of "clean coal." The question, of course, is how clean is clean coal, really?

The science behind the cleanliness of clean coal debateable and very complicated. Unfortunately if this last Presidency teaches us anything it's that the President doesn't do much. Although Bush has had a truly remakable slew of bad advisors, I think it's much more belieavable that he's simple a poor judge of character and very prone to cronism, and not that he's malicious. Obama's stance on clean coal won't matter one way or the other. The scientists and industrialists in charge of producing and using the coal, the Senators and Congressmen who help write the regulations, the lobbyists who influence those legislators, the chief science guy in Obama's canbinet....they'll do most of the work.

So is clean coal an important source of energy to at least examine? Yes. Does Obama have the right intentions in mind even if clean coal turns out not to work. Yes. I don't see what the problem is here. Do you?

New Newsweek Poll

It's very bad news for Republicans and good news for Democrats, and Obama in particular. Here is the breakdown:

• Bush now has a 28 percent approval rating
• When asked "do you lean to the Republican party, the Democratic party, or are you an Indepenant?" Democrats lead by 17 percent.
• Every leading Democrat (Hillary, Obama, and Edwards) beats every leading Republican (Giuliani, Romney, and McCain) in every hypothetical match up.
• Obama does the best in these match ups

While Republicans have been cooing over Romney's debate performance, they certainly don't feel like voting for him. Or, I should say, they don't feel like voting for him against somebody other than Hillary. Against Hillary, 13% of Republicans say they'd break ranks and vote against their own nominee. Against Edwards, 23%. Against Obama, 25%. Let me say that again. If Romney and Obama are the nominees, one out of four Republican say they'd vote for Obama. Only six percent of Democrats say they'd vote for Romney. In 2004, Bush achieved that kind of party unity. Only six percent of Republicans said they voted for Kerry.